Jump to content

Public Test Session - Long Range Missile Updates Series


323 replies to this topic

#261 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:28 AM

Here is a thought. Leave standard LRMs alone, and apply these changes to Artemis. That would help really distinguish the two systems.

#262 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 484 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:46 AM

View PostKalimaster, on 17 January 2019 - 08:28 AM, said:

Here is a thought. Leave standard LRMs alone, and apply these changes to Artemis. That would help really distinguish the two systems.

I'd second that once the bugs are worked out.

#263 DisasterTheory

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 371 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 09:14 AM

ATM style LRM flight pattern.... I like it.

#264 Domenoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 461 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:04 AM

View PostAkillius, on 17 January 2019 - 07:04 AM, said:


Used only the 1 mech for all LRM testing described for top half of post.
"Stalker 3FB(L) with 2x LRM20 min range 185m max range 900m (irregardless of all missile skills points applied)."

Okay, thought it might be a Stalker.

Stalkers, Catapults, Archers, Kintaros, and maybe something else I'm forgetting have "bay doors". There is a button in settings that lets you toggle the doors open or closed. If you don't use the toggle, they open (with a delay) when you fire then close again. If you use the toggle, they stay open until you toggle them closed again.

I believe this is the cause of your delay. In reality, dumb fire is actually quite responsive.

Edited by Domenoth, 17 January 2019 - 10:06 AM.


#265 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 4,257 posts
  • LocationUnknown... Except for the stars, it's kind of dark here!

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:40 AM

View PostNomad One, on 17 January 2019 - 03:06 AM, said:

Suggest trying the trajectory change itself on the PTS without any further changes.

Totally Seriously THIS... Nomad One, you've boiled it down perfectly with that very last sentence in your post. When PGI is doing a PTS on something, they really need to learn how to do things just one step at a time. It's like that old saying about not trying to take too many steps all together at once. Throwing in a whole bunch of other things just results in data that's already pre-corrupted with unnecessary factors that don't really pin things down. :huh:

~D. V. "That one thing in your post perfectly says what should have been the only thing tested right now." Devnull

#266 ZortPointNarf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 261 posts
  • LocationIsle of Man

Posted 17 January 2019 - 12:18 PM

Yay, can't test it as there is literally no one online. Perfect timing with PTS and events as per usual. Sigh.

Will try again tomorrow night.

#267 MayneMinU

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 02:01 PM

Oh goody. Just what we need. More missile boats running around.

#268 Alloh

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 60 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 02:14 PM

Just played a few on testing grounds, then against other players, shooting back.

Down to one word: LEGS!

Incredible, maybe it's different for others, but most my kills and deaths were due LEGGING, and almost always the mech loses one leg before dying. And in testing grounds is exactly the same, legs goes first.

I hated!

LRM's became weaker ATM's, with extra LEGGING capability! There goes another LEG!

Enemy have cover from above? Stare him and shoot.
Enemy has fronto cover? Just shoot.

Otherwise, it would be excellent if LRM in DUMB MODE, no lock, have this direct flight path!

But please, don't fix what isn't broken. STREAKs are. Missile locks are.

Solution is to make the "targeting circle" relative to distance, very large for a target hugging you, quite small for a mech one kilometer away!

This fixes both the problem of streaks being impossible to use against mechs too close, and the ease to hit targets far away, precision of hits depending on precision on missile lock.

Then just make streaks more efficient against lights and we have a full fix. 6xStreak6 against a 20ton should be instakill... currently, takes 3 volleys at least, if the light don't kill you before.

Edited by Alloh, 17 January 2019 - 02:31 PM.


#269 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,254 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 17 January 2019 - 02:40 PM

Nice. I like this idea.

#270 Alloh

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 60 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:14 PM

Quick test to try:

1. Equip both ATM's and LRM's.
2. go to "Testing Grounds" , find a mech, lock, <F5> to go outside, get at different angles where you can see you, the target and whole path.
3. Shoot - you'll have LoS.

Now comes the challenge: Where the ATMs differ from LRMs?? Only (damage per missile per distance) now.

#271 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:21 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 16 January 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:


Can you elaborate on what aspects of NARC you feel are abuseable / aggravated by these LRM changes?

Just to throw it out there as well, we are keeping an eye on the systems that interact with LRMs through this test just as much as we are focused on the LRM's themselves. As we are well aware that baseline changes to the LRMs will undoubtably affect those support systems as well. Feel free to post feedback on AMS, TAG, NARC, Radar Dep, or anything you feel is relevant to the discussion, we will be taking everything into consideration.

1st. Thank you for taking time to read response.
As far as narc. I wish it was more transparent how much ams you need to defeat it. (# of and at how many meters with how many nodes.)
Eg. I was at 225 meters with one ams with full range nodes and no ams nodes.
I was persistently narced for the better part of a match being stuck in a cover/no cover situation.
Did I even have a chance at defeating the narc?
Positive for lrm side. Defeating incoming lrm by having good overhead cover.(canyon walkway). The firing lrm mech had to close and did hit me with direct lrm that would have been defeated if he was not in Los. Kudos to the change and to the guy taking advantage of the change.

Sorry for delay. On/off grid can't be helped.


Also. Duration needs a tweak.
Mechs with hands should lower the duration significantly. (Swat those pests off!)

Edited by HammerMaster, 17 January 2019 - 03:29 PM.


#272 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:37 PM

View PostAlloh, on 17 January 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

Quick test to try:

1. Equip both ATM's and LRM's.
2. go to "Testing Grounds" , find a mech, lock, <F5> to go outside, get at different angles where you can see you, the target and whole path.
3. Shoot - you'll have LoS.

Now comes the challenge: Where the ATMs differ from LRMs?? Only (damage per missile per distance) now.

Ya not true.
ATM 120 meter min range.
3x damage to 270.
Longer range.
No idf.
Available only to clan.
Anything else?

Edited by HammerMaster, 17 January 2019 - 03:38 PM.


#273 Alloh

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 60 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

View PostHammerMaster, on 17 January 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

Ya not true.
ATM 120 meter min range.
3x damage to 270.
Longer range.
No idf.
Available only to clan.
Anything else?


Have you looked at both flying at same time, preferably from outside of the mech?

That's what I'm talking about...

#274 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:13 PM

View PostAlloh, on 17 January 2019 - 04:22 PM, said:


Have you looked at both flying at same time, preferably from outside of the mech?

That's what I'm talking about...

Don't they seem a little larger to you?

#275 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,932 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 17 January 2019 - 07:08 PM

Quote

  • Much more per-volley accuracy with the shallower trajectory more reliably hitting a target’s center mass. Which leads to both higher # of missiles hitting its target, and a greater concentration of damage on more centrally located geometry. In testing, this can become as high as a 30% accuracy increase over indirect fire. Although it should be noted that this value is based on averages tested, and will vary depending on spread a target’s geometry.




View PostChris Lowrey, on 14 January 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

View PostNavid A1, on 14 January 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

Also, would appreciate it if you could add the spread with LOS stat to the ones you already presented as well. Only thing that is mentioned in the PTS notes is that the spread will be "up to 30%" less. Up to 30% is not a stat, its more about % of hits which depends on target size, direction, etc.
What is the actual spread reduction %?


Mechanically, there is none currently, but practically, the lower angle of attack results in an up to 30% accuracy boost over the indirect angle of attack, as well an overall greater concentration of the fire focusing on more centralized components. Taken from internal testing data and the results of how many missiles per-volley hit with the new spread values indirectly vs. directly and monitoring the locations hit by those that did hit.

Because of this, at this time, we want to see the effect of what the impressions of what the trajectory change does on its own when the natural angle of attack results in higher values over indirect values. This is part of why we are conducting this PTS as we wish to observe how well these numbers hold up in live testing. And it is also why we made the note that this number will depend on factors like a target's geometry (As a King Crab will probably see different results from indirect fire compared to something like an Annihilator or Atlas.) In this case, we are going by physical results from internal testing and not just the weapon value settings.



I'm sad and disappointed to say that not only LOS LRM fire fails to give you less effective spread, it actually INCREASES spread, in direct contrast to PTS objectives.
I wonder what tests have been conducted to conclude otherwise.

Here is a test on an Atlas, a large target with a large front facing surface:



Also a test with artemis resulted in 32 LRM15A volleys on the same target. Not really promising.


Another test with LRM20s at a longer range:

Edited by Navid A1, 18 January 2019 - 04:57 PM.


#276 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 484 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:13 PM

View PostDomenoth, on 17 January 2019 - 10:04 AM, said:

Okay, thought it might be a Stalker.

Stalkers, Catapults, Archers, Kintaros, and maybe something else I'm forgetting have "bay doors". There is a button in settings that lets you toggle the doors open or closed. If you don't use the toggle, they open (with a delay) when you fire then close again. If you use the toggle, they stay open until you toggle them closed again.

I believe this is the cause of your delay. In reality, dumb fire is actually quite responsive.


Did more testing then I wanted to and removed my 1st complaint since I failed to copy my keyboard bindings over to pts profile.
So the missile doors were not opening as they would on live server so dumb-firing is not affected on PTS.

However everything else I wrote stands:
Live server stalkers range is 179m up to 959m
Test server stalkers range is 182m up to 959m (same skill tree unlocks as live)
Again I used river city testing grounds and mostly used locust for a whole lot of close range target practice.

I have this testing saved with D3DGear movie maker thingy, and will figure out editing and uploading later on if required.
Also I looked at my PTS movies and standing still at 182m while firing LRM20s its very obvious that somewhat frequently all the missiles just fly through the targeted mech and hit the beach behind it and no damage to LoS target-locked Locust at all from LRM20s!!!
Must try same test at farther ranges even though I know from in match this is an issue.

#277 Kaeb Odellas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,934 posts
  • LocationKill the meat, save the metal

Posted 18 January 2019 - 12:03 AM

Might I suggest a tweak to the flight path to follow a more trapezoidal pattern? Have the missiles fly up in a 45 degree angle to just above an Annihilator's height at 90m, continue at that elevation, then come back down when it nears the target. This would make them avoid obstacles and make it harder to simply avoid direct-fired LRMs while hill-peaking.

#278 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,932 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 January 2019 - 12:26 AM

You want to know something funny:

The velocity stats posted for LRMs do not correspond to the missiles themselves. They correspond to the direct distance by time to target ratio.

Missiles themselves travel at a speed corresponding to the length of the trajectory curve divided by time to target... which is much faster.



basically:

Actual missile velocity = velocity in stats * (curve length/direct distance)

Posted Image
In PTS, missile velocity is the same (as shown above) for both no LOS and LOS cases. Therefore, a lower arc results in a time to target much faster than a 175m/s projectile





FUN FACT 2:

Most of you know that ATMs in the game use copy/pasted LRM code... right?

I think I don't have to tell you about how fast ATMs have been travelling all this time.... yes, you guessed it.... 350m/s
game stats says 220.


Unfortunately PGI might need to refresh their memory regarding the original MWO code.

Edited by Navid A1, 18 January 2019 - 01:57 AM.


#279 GweNTLeR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Universe
  • The Universe
  • 583 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 12:35 AM

View PostNavid A1, on 18 January 2019 - 12:26 AM, said:

You want to know something funny:
Actual missile velocity = velocity in stats * (curve length/direct distance)

Do I get it right, basically the same flight time for direct and indirect shots? How did you find it?

#280 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,932 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 January 2019 - 01:00 AM

View PostGweNTLeR, on 18 January 2019 - 12:35 AM, said:

Do I get it right, basically the same flight time for direct and indirect shots? How did you find it?

no... missile velocity is calculated using the original MWO code which is based on high curve indirect fire stats.

Faster time to target is still due to shorter distance.

to put it simply, the LRM velocity in game stats is basically an average projected speed in horizontal plane. they use it to derive the constant projectile speed for the missile... which result in a much faster speed.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users